A number of complaints were received in regard to an Agenda programme on the 3rd of April 1995. 
The programme was entitled “Die Afrikaanse Taalmonument – ‘n Monument vir Wat?” (The Afrikaans Language Monument – A monument for What?). The complaint centered on alleged bias, offensiveness to the feelings of the Afrikaner cultural community, the furthering of racialistic feelings and objectionable language.
The BCCSA held:
- That “offensiveness to feelings” is not one of the criteria in the Code. Such a criterion would, in any case, be too vague to withstand constitutional scrutiny. “Offensiveness to religious feelings” is, however, a criterion. The main component of the complaints does not, however, refer to religion.
- That the programme did not amount to substantial one-sidedness. Even if more participants from a non-critical perspective were to have been interviewed, the complaints would not, it is believed, have been reduced substantially. The complainants would have remained perturbed about the strongly critical observations on the (Afrikaans language) monument by two of the participants (Messrs Dikeni and Botha).
- That the said critical observations were not likely to affect relations between sections of the community. The observations were not racialistic, but were at the most of a political nature; much freedom exists in the area of political speech. It is necessary that viewers should have the opportunity to hear a variety of views on television. They need not always agree with those views. Television, however has a duty to keep the community informed and, where necessary, even to broadcast opinions which are disturbing to some viewers. The European Court of Human Rights acknowledged this approach in a recent judgment dealing with a much more controversial matter than the matter presently before the BCCSA.
The SABC broadcast a follow-up programme two days later. Two representatives from organized Afrikaans language institutions took part in that programme. We believe that although the SABC was not legally bound to have broadcast the second programme, they had acted wisely in broadcasting the second programme since the first programme that led to dissatisfaction amongst many viewers.
If the BCCSA erred in finding that the first programme was not one-sided, the BCCSA believes that the second programme, in any case, rendered the required balance.